On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Peter Vander Woude <[email protected] > wrote:
> John, > > Tell them that their cobol routine will probably run around 11 times > longer than the current assembler routine. > > Our programmers used to use a cobol to read in a file, for ebcdic to ascii > translation, and then this subprogram would be called for each record to > convert from ebcdic to ascii. The job steps calling that routine spent > over 90% of their cpu time in that subprogram. > > I re-wrote into hlasm, and eliminated at least 80-90% of the cpu time, > just due to the efficiencies that the assembler code management of the data > in a table, have vs cobol. > > Of course, if they don't care about performance, that's their choice, > however, they should use the routines supplied by microfocus as those will > most likely be written in a higher performing language than cobol is in the > type of data manipulation that your hlasm routine is using. > > BTW, how much space are your SAN people complaining about? > Well, it turns out that I was "misinformed". It is not that the SAN people _are_ complaining, it is that the programmer is afraid that the SAN people _might_ start complaining and is trying to "head them off at the pass" so to speak. Personally, I am totally against application level compression. If this comes up again, before I am terminated (likely in a few months), I will again try to diplomatically tell them that they are stupid. > Peter > > -- Heisenberg may have been here. http://xkcd.com/1770/ Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
